Sample Research Project in the Context of a Freshman Writing Course
Prepared by Steve Tollefson, College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, 2005
This document provides an overview of the research
project for College Writing R4B, Spring 2005,
“Berkeley Writers at Work. There are four sections:
1. Course Description
2. Research Steps
3. Syllabus with just pertinent dates for the research
paper
4. Sample student paper, with abstract, works cited,
annotated bibliography, and reflection piece.
1. Course Description
Berkeley faculty produce an amazing number of wonderfully
written, fascinating books. This course will focus on Berkeley
faculty as writers. We will read a number of their books from a
variety of disciplines and genres—fiction, journalism, science,
and composition—as well as articles by and about them. In
addition, we will watch interviews with several of them about
their writing process. Class discussions address both the
content and the craft of the writing.
Much of the class will focus on learning from skills and
techniques from these authors that we can apply to our own
writing. We will work on close reading and critical analyses of
the texts, developing a variety of writing strategies and honing
critical thinking skills. Students will write a number of short
papers of various kinds-analyses, arguments, and reviews-that
will serve as background and preparatory writing for two
longer papers.
For the third, final project/paper in the class, students will seek
out a Berkeley faculty member to research and then interview
about his or her writing process. The process will include
independent background reading of works by and about the
author, developing interview questions, arranging and
conducting the interview, and synthesizing all the information.
Elements of the research process, such as a proposal, an
annotated bibliography, an abstract, and a “works cited” list,
will be submitted, along with the final paper, in a research
portfolio. All papers will go through multiple revisions during
which writers will receive input from the instructor as well as
from colleagues in the class.
Students will also attend the spring 2005 Berkeley Writers at
Work Event featuring Yuri Slezkine of the Department of
History. The date has not been set. Arrangements will be made
for those unable to attend because of class or work conflicts.
Reading List:
Virtual Tibet, Orville Schell
T Rex and the Crater of Doom, Walter Alvarez
Earth Abides, George R Stewart
Grammar Grams and Grammar Grams II: Stephen K.
Tollefson
Course Reader (availability TBA)
Independent reading of material by author you have chosen
 2. Research Steps
This is to be more than just an interview. It should be a total picture of the
writer. You will want background on the person, as much as you can find,
or get from the interview; critical reviews of his or her work; your own
analysis of some of the works; and anything else you can think of. You
might even want more: from colleagues, from students, and so on. 10-12
pages
Preliminary test on your knowledge of the library:
Choose one of the authors we have read so far—Robin Lakoff, Frederick
Crews, Nancy Scheper-Hughes—and do a library search for their work:
books, articles, reviews, and reviews about their work. Do not use Google
or any other general search engine. Only the UC Berkeley library website.
One hour maximum. Copy and paste all the references you can find into
one document. All I am looking for is the list of references. As an
example, see the attached list of references for Orville Schell.
Steps for the research/interview paper:
Like all good research, the first exploratory steps here may go nowhere.
That’s why you want to start early.
1. Decide what campus author you think you’d like to interview.
2. Check the library for works by and about this author. I expect that you
will be able to use Pathfinder, which will give you general information as
well as books, and the various magazine and journal article databases. For
most campus authors, those databases will yield the most material. See
other handouts for more details.
DUE: A LIST OF NAMES FOR POSSIBLE INTERVIEWS. HAVE AT
LEAST ONE BACKUP, BETTER TO HAVE TWO.
We will have a session with a librarian in order to learn how to search the
databases. That will be an important day for those of you who know only
Google as your source of all knowledge in the entire world.
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
2a. If there is nothing in the library by this author, go to your
second choice author. Since a substantial part of this paper is to
involve library research, the only stricture I’m placing on this
paper is that at least some of the author’s work must be in the
library.
That would eliminate most GSIs, who haven’t published yet. On
the other hand, there are staff, too, who have written extensively.
2b. Read enough pieces so you have a sense of whether you really
want to interview the person. If you can’t stand the writing, it’s not
going to be a very good experience.
3. Draft an email letter to your author, explaining the assignment. Things
to include: that you’ve read some pieces (and liked them)—you may or may
not want to mention them by name; why you want to interview the person;
how much time you think you’ll need; that of course, you’d be happy to
send the author a copy of the final paper. In order to prevent lapses in
etiquette (from last year: “I have to do an interview, but I can only see you
tomorrow at noon”) we will review everyone’s draft email letter.
4. Keep reading your author’s work. As you read, you should be flagging
interesting things, and making notes about possible questions. As in any
good research project, you need to develop your own system of tracking
quotations and ideas—note cards, your laptop, photocopies of pertinent
articles. As you do your reading, be sure to CAREFULLY write down the
citations, so you’ll be able to reconstruct them for your foot/end notes and
bibliography, both of which we will talk about.
Don’t do an interview until you have a good sense of that person’s writing.
4a. If there are pieces about the author (reviews of their work, etc.) you
should read those, too.
4b. You will undoubtedly go to the web at some point. And that’s fine. But
I expect most of your material will be primary sources (the author’s own
work). We will discuss both evaluation of web sources and the proper
citation.
So why do all this preliminary research? You need to be over-prepared for
the interview, to know as much as you can about the subject’s writing. In
addition, you will certainly include quotations from the author’s writings in
your paper, and even quotations from reviews.
5. Develop your list of questions, remembering that you should have more
than you’ll need, that you won’t get through all of them, and that you need
to be prepared for going off in directions that aren’t covered in your
questions.
a. Remember, as pointed out in the Fieldworking chapter, a huge
part of an interview is listening—and I mean that in the most active sense.
It may be for instance that an answer leads you to ask a completely different
question than you were going to, or that an answer fits nicely into a question
you were going to ask later. You need to be able to shift.
b. A question that never comes up directly in the Writers at Work
interviews might be one, however, that you want to use. That question
involves something about the kind of writing expected in your author’s
discipline. You are not going in as an expert in writing, so you should feel
free to ask “non-expert” questions. But you are going in as a mini-expert on
the writing of the person you are interviewing.
6. Decide if you will take notes or tape the interview. I certainly suggest
taping, so you can LISTEN more while you’re doing the interview. If you
don’t have access to a tape recorder, I will make one available to you—if
you give me enough lead time. Of course you’ll ask your subject whether
it’s ok to tape.
7. Write out a set opening and closing for yourself for the interview. Don’t
memorize it, but keep it in mind, so you get off to a smooth start and end.
The obvious things to say at the outset are how thankful you are that your
author has taken time from a busy schedule, that you’ve enjoyed reading
some of the work, and so on. With a sincere, not-kissing-up, tone. And to
conclude with thanks—and probably by asking if it’s ok if you email the
person if you have follow-up questions.
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
8. Once you’ve done the reading (including reviews of their writing), and
transcribed the interview, you can start figuring out what to do for the
paper.
One of the biggest issues is going to be organization. There is an infinite
number of ways you can use to present your information, and we’ll talk
about some of them. However, the most important thing I can tell you is to
remember that a research paper (that includes an interview paper) is a
SYNTHESIS of your research. Some students insist on presenting all the
research, rather than turning it into a coherent, tight presentation. So there
will undoubtedly be things that you’ve jotted down, or researched, that
won’t appear in the final paper.
In the course of writing your first draft of the paper, I expect that you’ll
return to the library when you discover gaps.
Along with the interview paper itself, you will submit, again, your original
proposal, as well as
1) an abstract of the paper
2) a works cited page
3) an ANNOTATED bibliography
4) a short piece, one to two pages, in which you discuss your experience
with this paper: the research, the interview, the creation of the paper.
Helpful websites:
Berkeley Writers at Work
http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/bwaw/
Webcasts of Writers at Work Interviews:
Linda Williams (film):
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/details.html?event_id=53
Robert Haas
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/details.html?event_id=21
Other resources:
Rolling Stone interview with Steve Jobs
http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-
2003&res_dat=xri:pqil:res_ver=0.1&rft_val_fmt=ori:format:pl:ebnf:fulltext
&res_id=xri:iimp&rft_id=xri:iimpft:aarticle:fulltext:00325614
 3. Syllabus of Research Paper dates
Week # 8
Week # 2 During this week, email to the class the questions you plan to ask
Fri, Jan 28 during your interview.
Diagnostic Test of Your Library Skills (You’ll need some):
Bring in writing as much information as you can find about Week # 11
Scheper-Hughes and Kirp. You’ll probably start with Google, Weds, Apr 6
because I know I would. But I want you to see what you can Discussion of bibliographies
find searching the library databases. Scholarly articles, books,
and book reviews are your main objectives. Week # 13
Mon, Apr 18
Week # 3 Oral Report # 1 on your interview paper: 2-3 minutes.
Mon, Jan 31 Substance: technicalities of the interview. How did it go? Two or
We will meet in the College Writing Programs library, 112 three things you learned from the interview. Plans for the paper.
Wheeler, to watch the video of the Berkeley Writers at Work Friday, Apr 22
interview with Nancy Scheper-Hughes. First draft of Interview/Profile paper due

Week #4 Week # 14
Mon, Feb 7 Monday, April 25
Bring in writing: a list of faculty members you might want to Annotated Bibliography due
interview. You might have checked them out on line, too. Begin Friday, April 29
to find books and articles by your possible targets. Second draft of paper due

Week #5 Week # 15
Friday, Feb 18 Mon, May2
Identify your first choice for interview. Bring a draft of the email Oral Report # 2 on your Interview paper—summary of where
you are planning to send to the faculty you want to interview. you are with the paper.
Tues, May4
Week # 6 Paper workshop. Bring copies for your group.
Read ”The Interview: Learning to Listen,” from Fieldworking
Week # 15.1
Week # 7 Mon, May 9 Final Interview/Profile paper due.
Contact your interviewee, arrange for an interview. But don’t
schedule it too soon. You need to be reading your author’s work.
However, you should have the interview completed no later than
April 8.

Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu


Internalizing Dead Kings and Ambiguous Art
Marian Feldman has been a member of the UC Berkeley faculty for
the last seven years and is currently Assistant Professor in the Near
Eastern Studies Department. She has published two articles, two
reviews, and is in the editing process of her first book. The
publications reveal Feldman’s process of internalizing her academic
interests by the stylistic differences between the articles. In her
professorial career thus far, Feldman has donned various roles as
art historian, archaeologist, professor and writer. This paper
provides insight as to how Feldman’s personality and different
aspects show through in her writing and by changes in her writing
over the course of her publishing career thus far.
As I enter my first college class, my attention goes to
Professor Feldman, a tall, slender woman in a loose pearl blouse with
black dress pants. The combination of her graceful stance and
scholarly presence distinguishes her already from the chaos of the
lecture room. The calm demeanor spreads through the room as she
gradually turns the lights down low, signaling the beginning of
lecture, and gives life to the art historian’s companion, the slide
projector. Her slow and steady speech is punctuated by inflections at
nearly every other word and reflects her scholarly presence. She
picks her words carefully and you can sense the moment’s thought
before each. Her precisely chosen words make each one valuable as I
frantically try to catch them all. Feldman incorporates her elevated
vocabulary in daily speech and lecture, requiring that I form my own
vocabulary list: mélange, koine, cache, lingua franca, etc.
In spite of being intimidated by Professor Feldman’s
scholarship, the fellow human being, Marian Feldman, shows
through at times. She does not hesitate to admit “When did those
excavations take place?” or “Who was that guy who ruled Babylon?
I never remember that one.” At one point she might exclaim, “Well,
it doesn’t matter anyway” followed by a signature chuckle. She
welcomes corrections or additions by students, and some questions
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
lead her to guiltily admit, “You caught me. I was trying to avoid that
one because, well, we just don’t know.”
And her witty personality emerges at breaks in the steady
speech. These breaks in seriousness reveal her comfort with the topic
where she jokes about it and prove a constant reminder that she is
only human. Such comments appear at least once throughout the
lecture. She introduces Cyrus the Great with the side comment, “you
can see he’s going places” and explains, with a childlike thrill offset
by her choice of vocabulary, “then all kinds of machinations happen-
really quite exciting!” And in discussing Alexander’s conquests, she
slides in, “You can only do that kind of foolhardy thing when you’re
22. When you’re older, you’re not that stupid or reckless.” In a
recent lecture, she acknowledged a fault in art history with a sense of
humor saying,
Keep in mind that when we interpret the paintings, we are
interpreting the re-creations, which have been meticulously
re-created based on the same paintings we are comparing
them to. So there is no surprise we find many trends and
similarities between the two!
The title of a recent lecture about Tutankhamun entitled
“Tutankhamun, International Man of Mystery” again reveals how
she adds a personal and humorous touch. It makes ancient history
more welcoming to readers and listeners, and of course reveals her
lighthearted personality.
Feldman’s academic focus is as dichotomous as her
personality. Feldman’s research has brought her to the point where
history and art meet: interpreting art in a historical context. When
she writes about art, it requires an eye for identifying “what is going
on”: the angles and colors involved, and understanding that certain
artistic displays have a universal meaning. And writing the analysis
involves two parts. The first is listing observations, the basics. The
second is translating visual observations into meanings. Feldman
refers to knowledge of history to give meaning to the art piece. When
she is writing, the art analysis comes straight from her, whereas
writing about the historical context is based on other resources and
requires little if any personal input. Even writing the most basic art
analysis therefore becomes a research paper, yet Feldman accepts
this saying, “When analyzing art, the words are stilted” and it is
Hard to find the right words…but it becomes second nature
writing…analyses. You get to a point where it’s just another
analysis and you know all the compositional elements to
look for.
Feldman has written two articles: “Luxurious forms:
Redefining a Mediterranean ‘international style,’ 1400-1200 B.C.E.,”
in 2000 for The Art Bulletin and “Ambiguous identities: The
‘Marriage’ Vase of Niqmaddu II and the Elusive Egyptian Princess,”
in 2002 for The Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. Both articles
cover the topic of art during the Late Bronze Age (1400-1200 BCE)
in the Near East, not coincidently the subject of her doctoral
dissertation. The two articles differ in their organization, audience,
and mood. These differences reflect Feldman’s change as a writer
and art historian over the course of two years. Her writing style
becomes clearer as the material and writing becomes more familiar
to her. Feldman conveys the information to the varied audiences by
adjusting to the audiences’ knowledge-level. These articles in
addition to two book reviews written by Feldman reveal how her
identity as the writer changes with audience and with writing
experience: art historian, archaeologist, casual, scholarly, trying too
hard to present information and feeling comfortable with her writing
and knowledge of the Near East.
Feldman’s first reaction to my having read her first
publication, “Luxurious forms,” is “You read that!?” Her
exclamation reveals nothing but shock. “Most of the people I asked
to read it, didn’t understand it,” Feldman explains and as I give a
minor agreeing nod, she gives an apology as if directed to anyone
who ever read it.
The article is not as hard to read as she makes it out to be,
and it is a rather a good example of how she combines history and
analysis. Feldman is straight-talking in the thesis: “I propose that
each tradition manifests subtly idiosyncratic signification within the
multidimensional social and political network of its use” but the talk
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
definitely doesn’t strike the reader in a straight path (Feldman
Luxurious 7).
It is easy for the reader to spot the main ideas in this article,
but understanding them is a different ballgame entirely. The long-
sentences and elevated vocabulary makes the content stuffed with
words but hard to comprehend as an idea. The thesis is hard to
understand because of the many “loaded” words: longer and more
abstract Latinate that makes up the bulk of the sentence’s meaning.
The speech lacks the concreteness and clarity that Feldman
demonstrates in her later publications. In this article, she writes,
“Artistic expression mediates human relations by articulating
specifics of meaning derived from the symbolic or cultural
significance attributed to the works” (Feldman Luxurious 9). The
series of prepositional phrases seem like afterthoughts built off of the
main idea and make it hard to read even when the diction is easier to
understand.
The language employed in “Luxurious forms” is written for
a specifically art-conscious audience: readers of The Art Bulletin, a
magazine published for serious art historians. Feldman admits the
major role that the audience plays in her writing:
I have to change my language and angle depending on who
will read the article. For The Art Bulletin, I had to provide
information about the Near East, its history and the
archaeology. Obviously, when I wrote for The Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology, I didn’t have to go into the
history but I had to define art terms.
Feldman as scholar of art and history is an interpreter who translates
information into the language of art or the language of archaeology.
Feldman’s art vocabulary goes undefined throughout “Luxurious
forms”: “an unfinished ivory pyxis” or an “amphora-type vessel” or
“female form in repousse” (Feldman 10, 18, 14).
In contrast, she explains knowledge that is basic to
archaeologists, such as chronology and regions of the Near East: “A
word must be said about chronology, that is, the sequential ordering
of historical events” and
 This closely knit world extended from the Aegean (present-
day Greece), to Egypt, Anatolia (Turkey), Cyprus, the
Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan) and Assyria and
Babylonia in Mesopotamia (Iraq) (Feldman Luxurious 13,
10)
In the later article, “Ambiguous identities,” published in The
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, she spends less time on
history than the previous article and archaeological terms are not
defined at all. Rather the art analyses receive the greatest attention as
they are least familiar to the audience, archaeologists. Feldman
explains to the audience the process of the art analysis in the
introduction so that they understand how she plans to support her
argument.
Feldman’s organization scheme changes dramatically between the
formats of the two articles. In “Luxurious forms,” Feldman
approaches arguments in an organization scheme that is difficult to
get into. The main idea of this article is Feldman’s argument that an
“international style” existed during the Late Bronze Age that grew
out of the communications and “elite” culture of the five kings who
ruled separate kingdoms throughout the Near East.
There are different pieces of information found throughout
the article: background history, data of archaeological finds, formal
art analysis, argument, and conclusion. Instead of writing them in
that order, Feldman writes each as separate entities without any
linear progression whatsoever. She starts with a section devoted to
the ancient city of Ugarit that seems irrelevant when it is then
followed by a completely different discussion of Near Eastern
politics. Readers become possessed by the demand, “What does this
all mean!?!” and finally Feldman ties the isolated pieces together in a
conclusion that ends the article as soon as the reader understands
Feldman’s argument:
The completely hybridized tradition creates a ‘supraregional’
koine connected to an idealized kingship network of palaces
throughout the eastern Mediterranean. The complimentary
themes of rulership, domination, and fecundity draw on
long-standing traditions of the network’s constituent
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
participants… In this way, the luxury goods, which may
have circulated as greeting gifts, served as a vehicle for
identity formation and maintenance within a community of
royal elites (Feldman Luxurious 28).
If the reader can make it through 23 pages of Near Eastern
history, archaeological findings, and analysis, the reader is sure to be
enlightened with this paragraph. It is understandable why Feldman
could find few who made it through the entire piece. The
organization scheme delays gratification, requiring that the reader
muddle through the challenging diction, and then remember the bits
and pieces of information until page 23!
The “Luxurious forms” article eventually reaches the reader
though it gets to a rough start and follows a complex path. Feldman’s
tone changes between analysis and historical background, adding to
the choppiness and stilted quality in this article and her personality
hardly shows through the didactic diction. Feldman admits to the
stiffness of her publication in her shock of my daring attempt to read
it. She says, “Bad writing,” writing that doesn’t strengthen the
argument or compel the reader to keep reading, “is because you
don’t know what to say.”
Feldman has published two primary articles, the
aforementioned “Luxurious forms” and “Ambiguous Identities,” and
is currently in the editing process of her first book, Diplomacy by
Design. They all involve the same topic: The international artistic
style that developed in the eastern Mediterranean from 1400-1200
BC due to the diplomatic relations between kings of different
regions. Feldman is of course aware of this topical déjà vu but slyly
responds, “But now I know what to say.” According to Feldman,
with each publication, the writing and the writing process become
smoother and more focused. Although not yet published, Diplomacy
by Design is expected to be the compilation of the last 10 years of
research and the “result of the internalization of my dissertation.” It
is this internalization of the topic that has made the writing “better,”
according to Feldman, in that the topic is “familiar…part of me.”
In “Ambiguous Identities,” Feldman discusses the identity of
a woman on an alabaster vase found on the eastern Mediterranean
coast whose Egyptian style reflects the ambiguous “international”
style and diplomatic relations in the Near East. Instead of the
complex organization scheme of her first paper, this paper, divided
into five sections, is much more straightforward. The five sections
are entitled: “Introduction,” “Niqmaddu’s ‘Marriage Scene’,”
“Diplomatic Relations and Interdynastic Marriages,” “Ambiguity
and Status in the Extended Amarna Period,” and “Discussion and
Conclusion.” The topics are presented in a linear sequence, starting
with Feldman’s introduction of the issue at hand: “the woman’s
identity” on the Ugarit “Marriage Scene” vase “in light of diplomatic
marriages and political negotiations” (Feldman Ambiguous 78).
Feldman gives a nine-page artistic analysis with visuals
followed by a discussion of the political situation during the period
to provide the reader with an artistic and historical context for her
argument. The essence of her argument lies in the fourth section,
where Feldman makes a convincing argument by discussing all
theories of interpretation and gracefully disproving each. She
includes a concession, only to state that these theories are
unsupported by archaeological evidence and based on old
assumptions. At this point she suggests her own theory: that the lady
is not Egyptian but simply created in an Egyptian style in
concordance with the “international style.”
Logically, the article ends with a “Discussion and
Conclusion” section in which Feldman gives the strongest arguments
for her case. Feldman’s organization makes much more sense and
makes arguing the point more successful. Topics are much more
focused and presented clearly in a linear progression, covering one
idea within the topic at a time. Feldman ends the article asking the
archaeological community, “Why couldn’t Niqmaddu play off a
Syrian girl for Egyptian?” Even though she maintains her elevated
diction, this article is definitely easier to follow, revealing that she is
more comfortable with the topic, and able to bring in more style to
the writing (Feldman Ambiguous 94).
Feldman’s two book reviews reveal how she can take on a
different approach in writing, namely in tone. In the a review of a
volume entitled The Synchronisation of Civilizations about applying
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
dates to the Ancient Near East, Feldman points out that chronology
is not her specialty yet her diction and tone is very casual and critical
for not being very familiar with the topic. She writes,
The volume offers something of a mixed bag... contributions
take on a strange flavor being for the most part proposals for
research not yet conducted (sometimes with a less than
subtle call for funding) (Feldman Synchronisation 867)
The organization is very mechanical and linear, like in
“Ambiguous identities”: she states the problem of chronology in the
Near East, defines techniques of dating, and ends with the review
mixed with her opinion. The review reveals her personality in her
frustration with chronology issues and with the inconclusive quality
of this volume in her comments that people “may feel disappointed
at the lack of substantive results presented” and that
The general Jack of results presented and the expansive
scope of many of the projects without supporting specifics
lend a slightly unreal feel to the work, as if the symposium
participants were asked to compile research wish-lists
irrespective of feasibility… one is left wondering precisely
just what sort of research agenda is being proposed…
(Feldman Synchronisation 868)
In contrast, Feldman’s review of the book Seagoing Ships
and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant is much more diplomatic,
though the book was equally frustrating to her. This review was
written two years prior to the Synchronisation review, and
stylistically seems to be a transition phase between her first article,
“Luxurious forms,” and the Synchronisation review in that the
organization is clear but the tone is not as casual. Feldman comes to
this book with her specialized knowledge that that sea trade played a
crucial role in the formation of the “international style” during this
time. And because of her background interest in the international
trade during the period, Feldman states that if the author described
exchange and “diplomatic gift giving,” it “would have further
enriched the interpretative discussion of the second part” (Feldman
Seagoing 660).
 Had Feldman not been the reviewer, this idea might have
been overlooked and so it shows how her specific knowledge has an
influence on the review. Feldman believes that as a reviewer it is
important to ask, “What would I want to know as the reader?” Thus
Feldman begins the review stating that, “Wachsmann brings to the
work a detailed knowledge of ships and seafaring” and ends with,
“notwithstanding these comments, Wachsmann does an admirable
job of marshalling a wide range of evidence from disparate fields of
study” (Feldman Seagoing 660-1). As for “these comments,”
Feldman makes justified complaints that
Several interpretative digressions would perhaps be better
placed as appendices, as they are sometimes hard to follow
and could benefit from greater synthetic
analysis…complications of using visual evidence for
documentary purposed, which Wachsmann readily
acknowledges, result in some interpretations with which
readers may disagree…a useful supplement would have been
a diagram of a ship with its parts clearly labeled to facilitate
comprehension (Feldman Seagoing 660-1).
Perhaps it was because Feldman disliked this article so much (as she
admitted) that she walks a delicate line, trying not to let her personal
opinion show through but at the same time giving a critical review of
the book with evidence to support claims. The organization of this
review is standard, including summary, praises, and complaints in a
straightforward path.
Feldman recently gave a lecture for the Archaeological
Institute of America about paintings and palaces in the Near East and
Aegean. The audience being more intellectual than her Near Eastern
Studies 15 class, she reads from a script nearly identical in
organization and diction to her first article. She speaks stiffly in the
familiar intonation pattern but the words are mechanical and require
strict concentration, as if mentally translating a foreign language.
And nothing seems relevant, between an explanation of technology,
painting technique and history of political relations. Forty minutes of
trying to focus suddenly leads to an “Aha!” moment as Feldman
gives the meat of the lecture in one long sentence. And then,
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
Feldman, without warning, attaches the anticlimactic “Thank you” to
her revelatory statement. One might think this a regression of style
on Feldman’s part, but the purpose of this lecture was to introduce
Feldman’s new direction of research: Middle Bronze Age painting.
Thus it seems that the stilted writing is very much correlated to
Feldman’s comfort with the topic as she recently consummated her
research of Late Bronze Age trade goods in Diplomacy by Design,
so she begins the “internalization” process again with a new topic.
Feldman has only been publishing for seven years, but
already she has demonstrated versatility in writing between the
reviews and articles. In this period, Feldman has made her writing
more readable through the “internalization” of the topic. Marian
Feldman’s skill at switching modes from lecturer to writer to
reviewer as well as from art historian to archaeologist is apparent in
her writing as well. It should then be no surprise that Feldman can
switch caps in a flash like the odd numbered baseball team that needs
another player. The intimidating academic of ancient Near Eastern
art history, with her pointer and lengthy explanations of how the
Assyrians employed propaganda is no sooner followed by a break in
her elevated speech and standard pattern of annunciation and
intonation, “What we see is that… the Assyrians are exacting and
asking for tribute in the way of ‘The Godfather’,” and suddenly this
professorial female art historian becomes an Assyrian-Italian
mobster threatening, “By giving an offer they can’t refuse.”
 Sample Research Project in the Context of a Freshman Writing Course
Prepared by Steve Tollefson, College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, 2005
Works Cited
Feldman, Marian. “Ambiguous identities: The ‘Marriage’ Vase of
Niqmaddu II and the Elusive Egyptian Princess.” Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 2002: 75-99.
Feldman, Marian. “Luxurious forms: Redefining a Mediterranean
‘international style,’ 1400-1200 B.C.E.” The Art Bulletin,
vol. 84, No. 1, Mar. 2002: 6-28.
Feldman, Marian. Rev. of Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the
Bronze Age Levant, by Shelley Wachsmann. Journal of the
American Oriental Society, Vol. 120, No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2000:
660-661.
Feldman, Marian. Rev. of The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the
Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C.:
Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss
Haindorf, 15th-17th of November 1996 and the Austrian
Academy, Vienna, 11th-12th of May 1998, ed. By Manfred
Bietak. Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 122,
No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2002: 867-868.
Annotated Bibliography
“AHMA Participating Faculty: Marian Feldman.” University of
California Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology,
homepage. UC Regents. 2005. 26 Mar. 2005.
http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/ahma/faculty_feldman.html
This website provides is a link off of the homepage for the
University of California Graduate studies group in Ancient
History and Mediterranean Archaeology. Marian Feldman is
a faculty member involved. The site provides brief
background information on Feldman as to when and where
she received her doctoral degree and what she has published.
Feldman, Marian. “Ambiguous identities: The ‘Marriage’ Vase of
Niqmaddu II and the Elusive Egyptian Princess.” Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 2002: 75-99.
This article is for an archaeologist audience. Feldman,
Professor of Near Eastern Art History, discusses the
ambiguous artistic implications of an “international style” in
the context of an Eastern Mediterranean vase. She argues
that the ambiguity is representative of the ambiguous
political relationships between the five great kingdoms of the
Late Bronze Age, using evidence of art analysis and
historical archaeological evidence.
Feldman, Marian. “Luxurious forms: Redefining a Mediterranean
‘international style,’ 1400-1200 B.C.E.” The Art Bulletin,
vol. 84, No. 1, Mar. 2002: 6-28.
Written for an audience of art historians, the article discusses
the “international style” found spread through out the Near
East during the Late Bronze Age. Feldman argues with the
help of archaeological evidence, knowledge of the political
situation at the time and with her own art analysis of various
archaeological finds, that there exists this “international
style” brought about by an international court culture.
Feldman, Marian. Rev. of Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the
Bronze Age Levant, by Shelley Wachsmann. Journal of the
American Oriental Society, Vol. 120, No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2000:
660-661.
Feldman reviews this book based on her background
knowledge of trade during the Late Bronze Age that
contributed to the spread of an “international style,”
addressed in other articles. She provides fairly objective
statements on Wachsmann’s success, while suggesting
possible improvements that would make the piece more
accessible to the reader based on her own experience, as one
concerned with the implications of ships on trade and less
familiar with the technical aspects of seamanship.
Feldman, Marian. “Tutankhamun, International Man of Mystery.”
American Research Center in Egypt, Northern Chapter. Notes of
lecture by Nancy Corbin. 17 Apr. 2005.
http://home.comcast.net/~hebsed/feldman.htm
This is a report of a lecture given by Marian Feldman and
recorded by Nancy Corbin of the American Research Center
in Egypt. In this report, Feldman again describes the
“international style” of the Late Bronze Age in regards to the
archaeological remains found with Tutankhamun of Egypt.
Corbin reports on the lecture without adding comments

Feldman, Marian. Rev. of The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the

Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C.:
Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss
Haindorf, 15th-17th of November 1996 and the Austrian
Academy, Vienna, 11th-12th of May 1998, ed. By Manfred
Bietak. Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 122,
No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2002: 867-868.
Marian Feldman bases this review on her in-depth
knowledge of the Late Bronze Age and the various
chronological debates that surround it. Feldman is less
experienced with the technical aspects of chronology as she
briefly describes the processes of absolute and relative
dating, but reveals her interest in the topic when she
critically analyzes the failures of the book to provide any
concrete solutions to the problems.

Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu

 Reflection
This project at first seemed very daunting: a semester-long
project, research, and interviewing a publishing professor at
Berkeley. Actually, on my first day of class, I was unaware of the
topic of this class and though it seemed interesting, I considered
dropping the class because I was intimidated. Instead this paper has
become a major learning experience for me and I think it is an
excellent class for a freshman.
I had not done research before to this extent and found it
very helpful. I learned about the many resources that are available
here and how to search through these resources. I had no idea there
were so many online databases and I have since been referring to
them for other classes. In fact, many of the research skills I learned
in this class, I have already applied to other classes! I have also
learned a lot from some of the negative aspects of research. I did not
organize my information very well and ended up misplacing material
throughout the process of writing, though eventually recovering it
all. It made writing a little bit hectic and I will remember to organize
or maintain folders in the future instead of a stack of papers.
When I read the articles, I had no idea what to look for, so I
treated them as if I was analyzing them. Then I picked out topics that
interested me; as in the differences between writing art analyses and
essays. Unfortunately, when I later sat down to write the paper, I had
many more questions that I wished I had asked Professor Feldman at
the interview. Another regret is that I did not write an outline for the
paper before doing the interview, because then I could have gotten
more information about a specific area rather than a range of
information and using only one thing she covered. The interview
itself went well in that I felt relaxed, in conversation with her as I
was able to discuss the topics with a background knowledge in art
history and ancient archaeology.
Steve Tollefson College Writing Programs, UC Berkeley, June 2005 tollef@berkeley.edu
The major fault in the interview is that I did not use a
recorder and I frantically wrote down only key quotes. As you can
see, I learned a lot from the paper by my mistakes. But I feel that
learning about research and interviewing is so valuable and I would
much rather learn how to do it properly as a freshman undergraduate
rather than when I am publishing or writing a master’s thesis!
As for actually writing the paper, I had trouble with
organization (as always) and how to present the information. My
greatest revelation is that someone who reads this profile might care
or understand very little about the archaeological topics that
Professor Feldman writes about, though I enjoy it. Based on this
revelation, I had to ask myself, why am I writing this? This question
is monumental for me, not just because of this paper, but in all the
papers that I write because I often lose sight of it. In fact, my style of
writing, in which I just write straight through without an outline,
reflects my tendency to just want to convey information without
organizing my thoughts. Furthermore a lot of my thoughts occur in
my head, as in this paper when I would justify my analysis, but
suddenly realize I had not explained this process in the paper and the
reader might not arrive at the same place I did.
The “Profile” paper is a great idea, a challenge and very
intimidating, but I have learned priceless skills from working on it. I
now have a model process of how to write a research paper, which
will serve me in the future. I am very proud of this paper, regardless
of the grade that it gets because of the dedication I put into it and the
learning experience that I have received from it.